TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sriraman For the Respondents : Mr. Prabu Mukund Arunkumar Junior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner challenges order dated 07.02.2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/R1 rejecting an application for revision filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') for assessment year 2012-13 filed on the ground of delay as well as on the merits of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground that no condonation has been sought, which conclusion is factually incorrect. 6. Not content with the conclusion on the aspect of delay, R1 also proceeds to reject the claim on merit, making reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [(2006) 157 Taxman 1]. 7. I am of the considered view that reliance upon the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 taxmann.com 113]. The facts in that case are similar to the present case, insofar as it deals with the power of Commissioner under Section 264 to cause enquiry in regard to claim made by an assessee. 10. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Department as captured in para 12 of that order is identical to the stand taken by R1 now and is extracted below: 12. Mr. Swaminathan wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Commissioner or Commissioner may think fit after making an inquiry and subject to the provisions of the Act, either suo-moto or on an application by the assessee. Though the remedies over lap, power under section 264 is significantly wider and the wisdom of choosing one over the other would really depend on the facts and legal position of each case. The facts in the present case are to the effec....